coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Belogorsk in the Amur Region.
5.  On 31 December 2003 she brought proceedings against the Social Security Office of Belogorsk on account of a refusal by the latter to increase her child benefit payments according to a certain method of calculation and seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. She also alleged that the Office had not given her access to a number of documents concerning those payments.
6.  By a judgment of 30 November 2004 the Belogorsk Town Court dismissed her claims as unfounded. The applicant’s representative lodged an appeal against the judgment on 12 December 2004.
7.  The Amur Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 25 February 2005. According to the Government, on 17 February 2005 the Town Court dispatched summonses to the parties. The Government submitted a copy of the cover letter dated 17 February 2005 and sent by the Town Court to the Regional Court and the parties, including the applicant and her representative. The letter bore the outgoing number “1779” and indicated that the Town Court was sending the case file to the Regional Court and that the appeal hearing had been listed for 25 February 2005, at 9 a.m. The Government also submitted a copy of an excerpt from the Town Court’s outgoing correspondence log. The column entitled “outgoing number” contained the figure “1779”, and that entitled “sent to” listed the Regional Court, the applicant, her representative and the respondent. The date below that record read “18 February 2005”.
8.  On 25 February 2005 the Amur Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Neither the applicant nor her representative was present. The judgment indicated that the appeal had been examined in a public session but did not specify whether the applicant or her representative had been notified of the hearing date.
9.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant’s representative made an inquiry to the Town Court about the state of the appeal proceedings. On 22 March 2005 the Town Court sent him a copy of the appeal judgment and indicated that he had been duly informed of the hearing date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Rostov-on-Don, a town in the Rostov Region.
5.  In 2002–03 the applicant stood trial for bribery but was acquitted. The applicant spent this time in pretrial custody.
6.  On 30 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court awarded the applicant against the Ministry of Finance 48,245.12 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage inflicted by the trial. This judgment became binding on 11 March 2004 and was enforced on 29 April 2005.
7.  On 28 April 2005 the Presidium of the Regional Court awarded the applicant against the Ministry of Finance RUB 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained in pretrial custody. This judgment became binding on 28 April 2005 and was enforced on 21 March 2006.
8.  On 4 April 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don adjusted the award of 30 December 2003 for the cost of living and awarded a further RUB 7,034.68.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Luga, the Leningrad Region.
5.  He sued the military unit no. 29760 of the Leningrad Military Circuit for damages resulting from a traffic accident.
6.  On 21 June 1999 the Luzhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region granted his action and awarded him 40,911.50 Russian Roubles (“RUB”) to be paid by the military unit. The judgment was not appealed against and on 2 July 1999 entered into force.
7.  On 2 August 1999 the Luzhskiy Town Court issued a writ of execution and on 9 August 1999 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 21 June 1999.
8.  On 13 August 1999 the bailiffs sent the writ of execution to a local department of the Central Bank of Russia no. 29708, so that the amount awarded could be recovered from the military unit’s account. The unit did not comply with the judgment, since no budget funds had been allocated from the federal budget for these purposes.
9.  As from 1 January 2002 the system of administration of the finances of the Leningrad Military Circuit has changed. The military units of the circuit, including military unit no. 29760, started receiving funds through the Federal Treasury system. The respondent unit’s account at the local department of the Central Bank of Russia was accordingly closed. On an unspecified date the unexecuted writ was returned to the bailiffs’ office.
10.  On 16 January 2003 the bailiffs returned the writ and accompanying documents to the applicant. With reference to Decree No. 143 dated 22 February 2001 (see the relevant domestic law section below) they invited the applicant to submit the documents to a local department of the Ministry of Finance.
11.  According to the Government, the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the regional department of the Federal Treasury at some point in 2004. They did not submit any documents in this respect.
12.  According to the applicant, on 16 January 2003 he sent the writ to a local department of the Federal Treasury. At some point the local department of the Federal Treasury returned the unexecuted writ to the applicant, referred to the impossibility to enforce the judgment due to the respondent unit’s lack of funds and invited him to submit it to the Federal Treasury in Moscow. On 20 May 2003 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution and the accompanying documents to the Federal Treasury. The applicant did not furnish any documents evidencing those transfers of the writ. He further submitted that after his complaint to the Administration of the President of Russia dated 30 January 2004 he obtained enforcement of the judgment.
13.  On 21 April 2004 the military unit complied with the judgment in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pskov, a town in the Pskov Region.
5.  The applicant sued his employer, a regional department of the Federal Debt Recovery Centre, for salary arrears.
6.  On 18 May 2004 the Pskov Town Court awarded him against the Government 342,578 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the arrears and RUB 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages. This judgment became binding on 7 June 2004.
In July and December 2004 the applicant sent enforcement papers to the Ministry of Finance, but in September 2005 the Ministry returned the papers, because they did not indicate the Ministry as the defendant and did not specify the financial source to be charged. The applicant asked the Town Court to clarify the judgment, but on 23 November 2005 the court refused this request, because the judgment was clear as it stood. The judgment has not been enforced to date.
7.  In the meantime, on the Government’s request, on 12 November 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment in the part concerning the damages, and rejected this claim. The Presidium found that the courts below had misinterpreted material law.
8.  On 17 April 2006 the Town Court gave two other judgments in the applicant’s favour. In the first judgment it adjusted the outstanding award of 18 May 2004 for the cost of living and awarded RUB 87,357. This judgment became binding on 28 April 2006. In the second judgment the court awarded the applicant RUB 206,672 in respect of salary arrears. This judgment became binding on 3 May 2006.
In May 2006 the applicant sent enforcement papers to the Ministry of Finance, but later the same month the Ministry returned the papers, because they did not specify the financial source to be charged. The applicant sent the enforcement papers to the bailiff’s service, but in December 2006 the service returned the papers, because it was not authorised to enforce debts against the treasury.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 10 November 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence under Article 146 of the Criminal Code then in force. He was subsequently transferred to a prison where he was detained pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him.
6.  On 4 December 1995 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant and a number of other persons with the above-mentioned offence.
7.  On 24 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court (hereafter “the trial court”) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 8 December 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and criminal proceedings against the applicant recommenced before the trial court.
9.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts, the Istanbul Court of Assize took over the case. On 18 May 2006 the applicant was released on bail from prison where he had been detained since November 1995. The retrial is still pending before the Istanbul Court of Assize. According to the information provided by the applicant, the most recent hearing was held on 1 May 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the village Shakhterskiy of the Tula Region.
5.  The applicant is a former serviceman. Upon his dismissal certain pecuniary benefits were not paid to him. He instituted civil proceedings for their recovery against military unit no. 23132.
6.  He had a military rank of junior sergeant in reserve at the material time.
7.  On 6 August 2001 the Tula Garrison Military Court granted the applicant’s claim. The court established that from 24 March 2000 to 4 November 2000 the applicant had performed military service in the North Caucasus Region and from 24 March 2000 to 1 May 2000 participated in the military operations in that region. The court found that the applicant was entitled to monetary compensation and the failure to pay it to him in good time constituted a violation of his rights. In its analysis the domestic court referred, inter alia, to the Law on the Status of Military Servicemen (see paragraph 19 below) which provides for entitlement of certain categories of military servicemen to additional monetary compensation, and to Decree of the Federal Government of 20 August 1999 no. 930-54 establishing the amounts of compensation due to military personnel of different ranks for their participation in the military operations on the territory of Dagestan. The court ordered the commander of the military unit concerned to pay the applicant remuneration for his participation in the military operations between 24 March and 1 May 2000 and pecuniary benefits for his service in the North Caucasus Region. An exact amount to be paid was not specified in the operative part of the judgment.
8.  The judgment entered into force on 17 September 2001.
9.  On 9 October 2001 and 5 April 2002 the Tula Garrison Military Court invited the commander of the military unit to report whether the judgment of 6 August 2001 had been executed and notified him of his responsibility for non-execution of the judgment. By letter of 5 April 2002 the court also advised the applicant of his right to ask for a writ of execution to be issued in respect of the judgment.
10.  At some point the applicant complied with the instruction and asked for a writ. On 7 May 2002 the Tula Garrison Military Court issued the writ of execution, and the enforcement proceedings were opened in respect of the judgment.
11.  Since the respondent military unit was based in Shali, Chechnya, on 19 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the writ to the Chief Bailiff of the Shali District of Chechnya.
12.  In their observations dated 14 July 2006 the Government submitted that the judgment of 6 August 2001 had not been enforced.
13.  In their further observations of 25 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that the amounts of 25,110 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 74,520 of pecuniary benefits for the applicant’s participation in the military operations in the North Caucasus Region were paid to the applicant by the command of the military unit no. 23132 on an unspecified date at his discharge from the military service. They did not submit any documents in this respect.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow.
5.  The applicant worked as chief physician in a hospital managed by the Moscow patriarchate. On 29 November 2000 the applicant on her own initiative left her place of work in order to participate in a conference dedicated to the fight against drug addiction in Russia, organised by the Russian Orthodox Church.
6.  On 18 December 2000 the applicant was dismissed for unjustified absence from work on 29 November 2000. She believed that the dismissal was unlawful and brought civil proceedings for reinstatement and for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 28 March 2001 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow partly allowed the claims, ordered her reinstatement and awarded her 19,401.03 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage were dismissed. On 14 May 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
8.  On 16 May 2001 the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment. On 1 June 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 28 March 2001 and the appeal decision of 14 May 2001 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.
9.  On 19 September 2001 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on 22 October 2001.
10.  The Vice-President of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the ruling of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court of 1 June 2001 and the subsequent judgments.
11.  On 16 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the ruling of 1 June 2001 and the judgment of 19 September 2001 and restored the validity of the judgment of 28 March and the appeal decision of 14 May 2001 as regards the applicant’s reinstatement and the refusal to pay her compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant’s pecuniary claims were remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh examination as the amount initially awarded had by that time considerably decreased in purchasing power. No appeal lay against this ruling.
12.  The Prosecutor General’s Office lodged an application for supervisory review of the Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2002.
13.  On 5 June 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 16 April 2002 by way of supervisory review and restored the validity of the judgment of 19 September 2001, upheld on appeal on 22 October 2001.
6.  The applicants are spouses. They were both born in 1947 and currently live in Belgrade.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  The applicants and a certain M.P. were co-owners of a house and five other buildings in Belgrade.
9.  On 21 May 1998 M.P. obtained a building permit for the partial reconstruction of the house co-owned by the applicants, authorising him to convert his flat into a duplex and enlarge it by approximately 100 meters squared.
10.  M.P. started with the construction work immediately thereafter.
11.  On 7 August 1998, on the basis of an on-site intervention, the Inspectorate of the Voždovac Municipality (“the Municipality”) concluded that M.P. was not performing the construction work in line with the building permit. It therefore ordered him to stop all work and to file a request for a new permit.
12.  On 2 September 1998 the Inspectorate ordered M.P. to demolish, within three days, that part of the construction which had been erected contrary to the building permit.
13.  On 11 September 1998 the Inspectorate issued an enforcement order in this respect.
14.  Meanwhile, M.P. filed a request for a new building permit.
15.  On 24 September 1998 the Municipality issued a favourable interim decision.
16.  On 15 December 1998 the second-instance authority quashed this decision, remitting the case for re-consideration.
17.  On 13 July 1999 the Municipality dismissed M.P.'s request for a new building permit, finding that his plan did not satisfy the requirements prescribed by the relevant domestic legislation.
18.  On the same date, a technical report noted that “following the recent precipitation” and the construction work undertaken by M.P. the applicants' property had been seriously damaged. In particular, mortar had fallen, walls had cracked, and extensive damp and leakages had appeared throughout the premises.
19.  On 27 March 2001 and 20 June 2002 the applicants filed criminal complaints against unidentified officials employed with the Municipality, alleging abuse of office.
20.  On 25 November 2003 this complaint was rejected by the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office (Peto opštinsko javno tužilaštvo) in Belgrade.
21.  Following the entry into force of the new Planning and Construction Act in May 2003, M.P filed a request with the Municipality for the “legalisation” of the reconstruction of his flat (see paragraphs 32-34 below).
22.  On 22 May 2003 and 11 June 2004 the applicants lodged submissions opposing the said legalisation.
23.  On 11 February 2005 the Municipality informed the applicants that M.P. had filed a request for legalisation.
24.  On 14 December 2005 M.P. supplemented this request.
25.  Over the years, the applicants had repeatedly requested enforcement of the demolition order dated 2 September 1998, but to no avail.
5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kaunas.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought civil proceedings for divorce and the division of the matrimonial property. On 13 November 2002 she signed a power of attorney authorising her lawyer to represent her during the first-instance proceedings before the Kaunas City District Court.
7.  On 4 December 2003 the Kaunas City District Court granted the divorce and divided the family’s property, awarding the applicant monetary compensation in the amount of 8,547 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 2,442 euros (EUR)), for the property assigned to her former husband. The applicant and her lawyer were present at the hearing.
8.  The applicant’s husband appealed. On 4 February 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court sent a written notice (pranešimas) about the forthcoming court hearing to four recipients – the applicant, her lawyer who had represented her before the court of first instance, the defendant and his lawyer. The notice was sent by the ordinary postal service.
9.  On 18 February 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court heard the appeal in the absence of the applicant and her lawyer. The court noted that no comments on the appeal had been received from the applicant. The other party was present at the hearing. The court decided to reduce the amount of compensation to LTL 3,547 (approximately EUR 1,013).
10.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, complaining, inter alia, that she had not been duly summoned to the appellate hearing. In particular, the applicant alleged that the notice sent to her had been dispatched to the wrong address. Moreover, she had authorised her lawyer to represent her only before the Kaunas City District Court. Thus, it had been futile to send notice to that lawyer at the appeal stage.
11.  On 26 April 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. It noted, inter alia, that, in accordance with standard civil procedure, the parties are to be notified about the first hearing by way of summonses (šaukimais) served upon them by registered post. However, they are to be informed about subsequent hearings by dispatching a notice via the simple postal service. These arrangements are deemed to speed up proceedings and are based on the assumption that the parties have a duty of care to follow the events in the case.
12.  The Supreme Court acknowledged that the notice to the applicant had been dispatched using an incorrect address and noted that the notice had been sent to the applicant’s former representative. However, it observed that, in any event, the applicant had failed to show that – had she been present before the appeal court – she would have adduced any evidence that could have led to a different resolution of the dispute. The applicant had not indicated any such information in her cassation appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Şanlıurfa.
6.  On 22 November 1984 Law no. 3083 came into force. Article 5 of this law provided the possibility of leasing State land to farmers who were in need and who fulfilled certain eligibility criteria (“right holders”). In particular, Article 24 § 1 of Law no. 3083 provided that those who had been convicted of certain offences were not entitled to benefit from this law (see paragraph 16 below).
7.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 3083, the applicant applied to the Commission which determined the eligibility of farmers to be right holders and requested to be provided with land in Ceylanpınar in the south-east of Turkey.
8.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant was identified as a right holder and leased land from the Directorate General for Agricultural Reform (Tarım Reformu Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the Directorate General”) for an indefinite period on payment of a rent. The applicant earned his living by cultivating this land.
9.  On 11 May 2000, after conducting a “security investigation”, the Directorate General annulled the right holder status of the applicant.
10.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant brought an action in the Gaziantep Administrative Court requesting the stay of execution and reversal of the Directorate General’s decision.
11.  On 8 June 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court decided to request the defendant administration to indicate the reasons which grounded its decision to annul the right holder status of the applicant. The court invited the defendant administration to submit their response and relevant documents within thirty days.
12.  On 2 August 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution of the decision, holding that necessary conditions were not met.
13.  On an unspecified date, the Directorate General refused to submit the information or documents requested by the Gaziantep Administrative Court. In this respect, the Directorate General relied on Article 20 § 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure which provides that the Prime Minister or other Government Minister may refrain from submitting information or documents to an administrative court if the information or documents in question pertain to the security or vital interests of the State.
14.  On 7 December 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. The court held that the impugned decision of 11 May 2000 and the refusal of the Directorate General to submit the relevant information and documents had been in accordance with the domestic legislation. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 15 April 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 July 2002.